Exploring Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) in Youth Mental Health: Reflections from Researchers and Young People

Background Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) promotes inclusive, anticipatory, and reflexive research practices that respond to societal needs. While widely applied in technological fields, its application in youth mental health remains limited. This study aimed to explore how RRI principles are understood and enacted within a large interdisciplinary programme on digital youth mental health in the United Kingdom, focusing on the perspectives of both researchers and young people. Methods An online survey was conducted with 21 researchers and 5 young people (mean age = 21 years, standard deviation = 2.74) involved in the programme. The survey included open-ended questions exploring knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to RRI and youth mental health. Responses were analysed using Reflexive Thematic Analysis to identify patterns of meaning across the dataset and to generate themes. Results Six themes were developed, reflecting participants’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices. Both researchers and young people conceptualised youth mental health as multifaceted, shaped by personal, social, and cultural factors, and existing along a continuum from flourishing to struggling. Young people highlighted digital harms and economic precarity, while researchers emphasised biopsychosocial determinants, offering complementary perspectives. Involving young people was seen as essential for challenging adult assumptions, improving clarity and relevance of tools, and strengthening ethical integrity. Barriers included 4 communication gaps, entrenched hierarchies, inconsistent involvement, and the resource-intensive nature of participation. Key facilitators included mutual respect, care, flexibility, and procedural structures such as youth co-chairs (i.e., a young person co-leading the project/grant with the principal investigator/s) and regular collaborative meetings. Together, these elements demonstrated how RRI values can be embedded to foster meaningful and equitable youth–researcher partnerships. Conclusions This study shows that applying RRI in youth mental health research enhances co-production by integrating diverse perspectives, addressing ethical concerns, and strengthening the quality and social relevance of research. To fully realise this potential, RRI must be embedded as an ongoing practice supported by intentional infrastructures, such as youth leadership roles, communication training, and opportunities for intergenerational dialogue. Crucially, funders must recognise and resource the relational, iterative, and time-intensive nature of responsible youth involvement. Embedding RRI in this field provides a valuable framework for moving beyond tokenistic consultation towards inclusive, future-oriented, and ethically grounded research.